G.R. No. 193478 June 23, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RODOLFO P. FERNANDEZ, NELSON E. TOBIAS, and FRANK R. BAAY, Accused, NELSON E. TOBIAS, Accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Rodolfo P. Fernandez, Nelson E. Tobias, Frank R. Baay, Joel B. Uy, Eduardo D. Manuel, and Nenita P. Manuel were charged with violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the sale and delivery of one kilo of cocaine. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of PDEA operatives, is that on June 22, 2004, a buy-bust operation was conducted. PO1 Narciso Padua, acting as a poseur-buyer, met with accused Fernandez at his house. Accused Tobias arrived carrying a bag containing cocaine. Inside the house, Tobias gave the cocaine to Padua, who in turn handed over boodle money. Upon Padua’s signal, the buy-bust team arrested Fernandez and Tobias. The boodle money was found in Tobias’s possession. Based on subsequent interrogations, accused Baay and Uy were arrested at a nearby McDonald’s, and the spouses Manuel were arrested at Tobias’s house. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was cocaine. The defense interposed denial and frame-up. Fernandez claimed he was negotiating the surrender of cocaine for a reward and was set up. Tobias claimed he accompanied a friend to Fernandez’s house, was unaware of any drugs, and was arrested when his friend failed to appear. Baay and Uy claimed they were merely at McDonald’s for unrelated reasons and were wrongfully arrested.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the guilt of accused-appellant Nelson E. Tobias for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Nelson E. Tobias. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty due to breaches in the chain of custody. The buy-bust team did not immediately mark the seized evidence at the place of arrest. The required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 —a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official—were not present during the inventory and photographing. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for these procedural lapses. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were therefore compromised. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with unwavering exactitude, and non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure, absent justifiable grounds, warrants acquittal.